Mah. 36" excludes completely the application as a desktop.Not that it wouldn't be nice, but it is a different product altogether.I kind of like the idea of ultra-wide screens: with 16:9 I find myself uneasy tiling two windows side by side: in most cases, the space is not enough.21:9 might fix the issue (I'm talking about productivity, of course).Watching movies sitting in front of a 29" screen sounds odd to me. You can't be too close, but if you're sitting on a couch it'll be way too far.Reply

Page 1:Video Inputs 2xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort, 1xDVI, 1xMHL (Shared with HDMI1)"What is missing is an analog DSub input, which I almost always still see."

LG 29EA93—AV Use and Calibration"With a pair of HDMI inputs to go with the VGA, DisplayPort, and DVI inputs, you can easily hook up a game system, Blu-ray player, DVR, or other AV device to watch on it."

The way I see it, these ultra-wide desktop monitors are a great replacement for dual-screen setups. If the OS added some 1/4 width window placement you'd have a dual-screen without the annoying gap in the middle.Reply

I have a 27" monitor on an arm and I'll pivot it depending on what I'm working on. It's not common, but if I have a really tall spreadsheet or a document I'm working on, I like to have the ability, but I admit it's rare.Reply

I have three 24" displays in portrait mode for Eyefinity. Works relatively well as the 3240 x 1920 is very close to a 16:9 aspect ratio. Bezel compensation alters this a bit so it is nearly a perfect 16:9 ratio.

Using three of these 29" displays in portrait for Eyefinity would be roughly equivalent to a 4:3 aspect ratio from the days of old. Both old and new games support 4:3 aspect ratios so there would be some use.

The monitor itself is mainly the hassle for portrait mode. Not all of them have good stands that easily allow for portrait orientation, if at all. Reply

They should stop wasting doing monitors like that and create panoramic, concave 180 degree models to replace Eyefinity setups. I would much more prefer buying one big screen than wasting time (& cash) with buying 3 LCD and watching screen with borders of each LCD. I don't get it how people can live with stuff like that. Just brrr....

What's that basically two rear projection screen systems put into a single cabinet? I recall hear that that display as just physically big. Also the resolution wasn't as high as the typical Eyefinity setup.

I'm pretty sure it came out before Eyefinity was announced, but I also know that it kept showing up at CES for a couple years before finally being available to the public. I believe it was two DLP projection units in one cabinet, but I think it was seen by the PC as one monitor. All I know is that people that saw it IRL said it was a thing of beauty.

Why would they expect a significant number of people to pay that much money for that screen? 900 vertical pixels, are they kidding me?

The monitor in this review is too wide for desktop use, in my opinion, because it doesn't wrap around. I'd rather have 3 monitors for surround.

As far as the 16:9 comment in the article being bad for productivity - it's bad for gaming, too. For example, most MMOGs put most of their UI at the bottom of the screen, so I want more vertical space; so, 16:10 is better for gaming. I get around this in WoW by using an addon to make a custom UI and put it on the side of the screen of my 2560x1440 monitor, but that's not always practical, and when I play on my computer with a 16: 10 screen the UI is still on the side, and not optimum there.Reply

So you say " In my very casual use this didn’t bother me"...and then use that as your main argument against the screen?

That is somewhat strange. If you can only quantify the issue, but not qualify it, then you shouldn't use it as such a strong argument.

Finally, it would be great to get a link back to the methodology used to measure monitor latency. Prad had a huuuge article on that, and I'm not even sure that the methodology you use is actually giving accurate results.Reply

I don't think he was unclear. Input lag is really only a big issue when dealing with really fast action games. For slower paced games and cinefiles (assuming you can adjust latency of your audio source to match) input lag is not as important. So while I can understand the appeal of an extra-wide display for immersive gaming, the high latency of this display cancels that out.

Prad? They established that lag testing applications are accurate enough. In the end, being accurate to 1fps is more than sufficient. Look at this chart showing the many different testing methods. They're all pretty close.

I will say that I am surprised that the display was tested at 1920x1080 rather than the native resolution. How do we know that the non-native resolution didn't contribute to observed latency? I guess I would have liked to see the native resolution tested to be sure. As a gamer and "cinefile", I would certainly attempt to run the monitor at its native resolution whenever possible, using FOV hacks as necessary.Reply

I understand, but the results - faulty or not - are roughly all within 1fps or real-world perception. Displays that have low latency using the old method still have low latency using the new methods, likewise with high latency. Other than objective purity, it doesn't seem to matter.Reply

Not very sure why you asume the target was movies, i see that more as an unintended benefit and this as just an alternative to using 2x1080p screens.Maybe you would be happier with higher vertical res,guess there is no reason for them to not to that too at some point.The pricing is rather unfortunate, the Dell was quite a bit cheaper on BF and the input lag takes away so much of the benefit of having this AR.Wish someone (hint Samsung) would make a 3420x1440 (more or less) with flexible display where the curve can be adjusted.That would be way fun,maybe even help revive a bit PC gaming.Reply

The movie assumption comes more from the presence of dual HDMI inputs, a CMS, and an MHL input than from the aspect ratio. Those lean more towards it being a shared desktop and TV/Gaming display, and once it's used for that then movies come more into play. Without the extra inputs and control I'd think it's more likely a dual monitor replacement. I think it's a bit of both, but needs some work.Reply

People complaining from the 16:9 vs 16:10 or 16:10 vs 4:3 are not complaining just based on aspect ratio. Actually everyone would like a wider display and not complain... if it really were wider. Unfortunately manufacturers often accomplish these wider ratios by cutting out vertical space instead of by adding horizontal space.

With this display we do have added horizontal space over a regular 1080p display. So I do not expect anyone to complain... Unless this is priced to compete with 2560x1600 displays instead of with 1080p displays, in which case, yea, it is a no-go.Reply

Price is quite disconnected the number of pixels.With this display being so uniform, it's reasonable to add a premium to the price.Additionally, there's a bit of exclusivity thing going on, with only two screeen manufacturers marketing that panel. Reply

I complain and I complain cause of the aspect ratio, my office desk doesn't have unlimited space, if I allocate 50cm for the screen then I'll lose screen area when I move from a 16:10 to a 16:9, on a 4:3 screen I could easily open a page on Office and see everything now I always have to scroll up and down same with web-pages, the ribbon thing on Office doesn't help either! Reply

The complaint with the transition to 16:9 was not about the aspect ratio. Rather it was that the transition was accomplished by shrinking the height and thus the screen.

Had the 16:9 panels been introduced at a resolution of 2133x1200, it's unlikely there would have been much complaining.

These 21:9 panels are presented as an expansion of the existing standard; you're not losing display area unless you're transitioning from a 2560x1440 monitor which usually costs half-again as much.

If 1080 is an acceptable vertical resolution for you, then this screen offers the opportunity to expand horizontal coverage (run a 16:9 game/movie window and keep other information visible) without using up all your desk space or dealing with two bezels right in the middle of your field of view.Reply

You would probably need to have OCD to really be bothered by it. I'm sure most with ADD or ADHD wouldn't be. You would need to have an actual anxiety related syndrome to be really bothered by it. Not raging out for loosing a match in CS in front of their computers.

I guess you must have Tourrett syndrome for yelling out insults? Well it's the internet. So..

There is a field and a small market out there for people who want something close to 2.35:1. There is plenty of content produced in anamorphic wide screen or within that 2.35-2.40 range. Is a matter of preference for some and obviously the reviewer didn't think it hit the mark with this one. It isn't unreasonable that it should work in it's intended aspect ratio. There is some interest in this kind of monitors. Obviously on a 2.37:1 screen like this it would be letterboxing all around a 2.35 film that isn't custom cropped. It would just be at the top and bottom on a 16:9/10 or 4:3/5:4 screen. Here it would also have bars on the sides giving you an much smaller effective viewing surface. Much worse so then a 1.85:1 or 16:9 movie. The real advantage is only there if you can crop the movie to fit the screen, otherwise 2:35:1 content is just unusable.Reply

What this is, effectively, is an attempt at CIH for direct-view displays. More and more projectors are beginning to adopt this feature or allow for CIH lenses (usually above the $2,500 mark), but the same problems exist there. You have to adjust for pillarboxing instead. I much prefer pillarboxing to letterboxing. Of course, with CIH projection, you never lose 1:1 mapping.

The downside to all of this is that all 1080p films on Blu-ray are 1920x1080 resolution for the video streams including the black bars. So when you blow up a 2.35:1 image on a native XXXXx1080 display, you no longer have a true 1:1 resolution, so you need a high-quality scaler to avoid artifacts. ~1920x800 would be better suited to this, but obviously then you would lose resolution for 1080p 16x9 and 4x3 content.

I really like the wider screen for gaming, but you can achieve the same horizontal resolution with a standard 30" monitor, but gain vertical res as well.Reply

I also am probably one of the targets for this monitor, as my home theater uses a 2.40, 122" screen, so I'm very familiar with all the reasons for anamorphic screens, as well as the issues that can arise in the setup of them. It's really about the choice of Constant Image Height over Constant Image Width, where both are going to have compromises for the viewer. For those that want a CIH setup, a 21:9 monitor offers something that is very expensive to do with a projector (a high-end anamorphic lens is thousands of dollars alone), but still has flaws of course.Reply

Unfortunately, with the high input lag, that seems to rule it out for serious gamers altogether, leaving it as something just for cinephiles to use, but they can get a larger 2.35:1 image on a 42” or 50” LCD or Plasma and have a remote for input control and volume adjustment.

Why don't you ask LG (or Dell) for a detailed technical explanation for this input lag? I tried but failed. :(If the input resolution is right the scaler should be bypassed and if the resolution isn't right scaling still shouldn't take more than 5 ms.Reply

I did talk to LG in depth about it and the concerns that came up during testing. They seemed receptive to the idea in the future that a mode to bypass all of the processing for displaying the information faster for games about be useful. I have no idea if anything will come of it, but at least they understand the issue from gamers and what they want.

From all the displays tested, the lag seems to be a combination of multiple inputs, screen adjustments (such as the CMS here), and then scaling the image. The scaler itself might play little to no role in it, and it can all be the inputs and the image adjustments that cause the issue, but without being able to test the individual panel with different components, it would be hard to determine.Reply

recently (3 months) bought an asus PA246Q, wide gamut(Adobe RGB), 16:10 screen, for professional use and at the same time got an Lg 32" as a present. the ergonomics of the asus screen have to be experienced, as have the colours( in colour aware apps-- even Firefox). Even videos are be good to go through as the media player control do not hide the material.I think you should consider reviewing it, as it offers tremendous VALUE FOR MONEY.The only thing is that I have no idea how it will work for use as a home cinema use-- because that is NOT what I got it for.Reply

"Of course there aren’t any 21:9 CRT displays around that I’m aware of so once again this is tested at 1920x1080 resolution using SMTT and the 1:1 mapping selected in the menu."

Is there any way to test it at its native 2560 x 1080 resolution? I can imagine the scaler for this displaying being a bit unique considering its aspect ration and relatively high resolution. The scaler isn't altering the image resolution but it does have to add the black bars on the side of the image. It is at the very least doing something and running the display at the native resolution would be able to by pass it resulting in lower lag. The lack of 21:9 CRT's would be a problem but couldn't the display be tested against itself? IE two side by side. Getting a solid number would be difficult but observing a significantly lower input lag should be possible.

I'd also like to see a review of the Dell U2913wm display. it should use the same panel and will likely get similar results (which aren't bad). The main difference appears to be that the Dell supports DisplayPort chaining so there would be a case for testing more than one. :)Reply

The testing was done at 1920x1080 and the LG doesn't scale that image, it is centered in the display which in theory should introduce no lag. The only analog displays that I'm aware of that can do 2560x1080 at 60Hz are high end CRT projectors with 9" CRT guns. While still available used, they're still thousands of dollars and a couple hundred pounds to install, so I wouldn't count on seeing one soon for testing a display like this.Reply

FWIW, my FW900 can push 2560x1600@60Hz with some driver patching and custom resolution tweaks. I've heard of people getting up to 70Hz, but that requires exceeding some boundaries I'm not comfortable with. I rarely go above 1920x1200 with my daily work and gaming, but that's only because those super high resolutions have such low refresh rates and they are too difficult to resolve - making it rather moot.

I tend to dislike seeing tech reviewers get personal feelings involved, or how their opinions of any technology regarding future outlooks are, however, I will never mind it, the review itself being more important.

The bottom line for me is always to keep new technology affordable, or I will have to wait a few years until it does.

For any particular monitor that's not a big screen, I'll only pay around $300 tops for it. You can easily guess this fits me into the current sweet spot to buy 27" LCD monitors at the moment, right? For desktop, the is very nice.

As far as the 21:9, 16:10, 16:9 debate, I actually want them all. More variety for end users. And the popular opinion vs unpopular opinion state-side isn't all that bad either (not that I actually lean towards the 'in the box' mindset)

I never did like the VCR vs Beta debate, nor do I like industry standards too much over competing tech such as Blu-Ray vs HDDVD or HDMI vs Display Port. I can live with dual players instead. Haha. Or Monitors that sport both types of connectors. It doesn't cost that much for either one to be printed on disc or to include both kinds of connectors. Ok, signing off.Reply

Why blackbars on 16:9 screen? Just crop that ridiculous 21:9 to 16:9, which is more than enough wide already. Oh, you are afraid to loose some very important action happening on the sides?

It is Hollywood, not display industry, that is desperately behind the times clinging to that ancient 2.37,2.40,2:35 (they can't even make their mind themselves for the exact figure). Lately, there is some sanity coming back, and many blockbuster movies shot in 16:9 OAR. They have to: to achieve maximum 3D effect it's better to fill in the entire field of view, and this is not possible with embrasure view. To summarize, we'll see slow and agonizing death of 21:9 in next 5 years. Reply

The ratio for CinemaScope has changed over time, for a number of reasons, but it's not a random number:

2.55:1 - Original size with magnetic stripe for audio2.35:1 - Switch to analog optical audio track that takes up space on film2.39:1 - Switch in 1970 to smaller gate size to hid splices in the negative

2.40:1 is what many 2.39:1 films are cropped to for home video releases (a difference of 3 pixels vertically). 2.37:1 is what 21:9 monitors wind up being as they use common sizes from other displays (1080 pixels high, 2560 wide like 27" and 30" displays).

Cinemascope ratios aren't close to dying, and will be around just as much in 10 years as they are now as they still offer something that most people can't get at home.Reply

I must give LG a credit: take some defective 30" 2560x1600 panels, cut top and bottom and resell it as "new" "innovative" product...

The industry moves in bizarre ways. Take that crippled 21:9 58" Vizio. It is passive 3D, so it's half of the resolution vertically. That's right, they have 540 vertical pixels, and 5(!) times more pixels horizontally. Reply

No movie will ever be shot in 16:9, because 16:9 is aesthetically bad. It looks bad. It does not have that "magic" movie feel, which is basically 24 frames per second and 2.39:1.

I for example don't watch cropped movies. It is for aesthetical reason that they use a format that wide. The frame looks different, there is more story told in each frame and there is a lot of useless detail missing that otherwise would be there (like a lamp overhead). You can do a lot more in 2.39:1 than in 16:9.Reply

I recently started using a 29'' 21:9 display from the Dell Ultrasharp series. Some of my experience differs for this reason (minimal light bleeding and a stand that does allow the screen to move vertically), but it is largely a similar experience to this LG display.

This monitor, and aspect ratio, are near-perfect for a specific set of functions and entirely wrong for most mainstream home usage.

For movie watching, you are probably better off with a cheap and large 1080p 27'' panel. Most content is this, or nearly this, aspect ratio and the screens are less expensive.

For games a true 2560x1440 monitor offers a larger display area, and is preferable.

For web browsing a 21:9 monitor gives you an enormous quantity of dead space, and the same experience as a 23'' 1080p monitor.

Where the 21:9 shines, and is quickly becoming indispensable for me is at-work productivity. As someone that is always working with 2-4 different files (pdfs, excel, email) I need to be able to see items side by side. Looking at a financial report and then updating the bits relevant, this is the perfect set of compromises.

16:9 is NOT a work-friendly format. I do not need to see all those additional rows in excel normally (although 21:9 allows for more of that vision if necessary), I also don't need the extra width on PDFs (which are scanned from typical A4 letters), or emails, which scale.

What I really need are 4:3 monitors, but a couple of then. The 21:9 format is very practically 2 of these monitors combined in one. You take different documents and give them each half a screen.

It is for this use that the review should be directed. I strongly encourage offices that use multi-screen setups, or ask their employees to work with multiple pieces of data at once to consider these as replacements.Reply

Yes, I could do math, but I'm busy at work and too lazy to figure it out:

How does this compare in vertical size to a 27" 16:9 display? Is it the same height, only wider? Or is it shorter in height?

Did you compare input lag on different interfaces? DP vs. HDMI vs. DVI? It's possible that one input is "native" and the others go through conversion internally, adding lag that wouldn't be present on a different input.Reply

This is a great form factor for gaming, but gamers are going to be turned away by the input lag. Even gamers who won't necessarily notice such lag will be scared away just from the reviews. For a monitor of this size and price, I would think it would be necessary to address as much of the market as possible, and they are cutting off a big piece with that input lag.

2) Windows 8 wrecks this as a dual monitor replacement.

The size is reasonable for someone who wants to go from 2x 1280x1024 monitors to one wide monitor. It's very close to the same pixel count as 2 1280x1024 monitors. This would be great for 2 windows side by side using half the screen... if Windows 8 would let you do that..Reply

this monitor is great for office work. Its ideal for people that work with PDFs, Excel, and Email that all relate to one another and frequently need to display multiple documents at once. I do not see this as a good gaming form factor at all, its not tall enough.Reply

Not a great gaming form factor? 3 screen gaming type immersion without 3 screen pricing, bezel issues and driver issues sounds pretty good to me.

1080 vertical isn't tall enough for gaming?

It's great for office work. like you mentioned, but my point was that Windows 8 doesn't let you do what you are talking about doing. It's either docked or maximized, and like it or not, home users are going to be virtually forced to migrate to Win 8 over the years. Reply

It won't take off. Can't imagine myself playing computer games and looking left and right all the time. And I don't think this monitor is a good one to watch films with. Such a big display requires a definite video resolution (yeah, a high one if you don't want to look at blurry image).Reply

there are no resolution problems. Its 2560x1080. nothing is blurry, there is just lots of horizontal space. I own the dell one and I wouldn't recommend it for games, what its terrific for is office productivity.Reply

How is a 2560x1080 monitor better for office productivity than the similarly priced 27" 2560x1440 screens? How often do you have really wide and short stuff in an office? 30" 2560x1600 is even better.Reply

I just heard where the FCC will now allow cable television providers to scramble all channels. So, having an HDTV with internal tuners is foolish, unless you are watching over-the-air TV. This LG is a great idea as a television, just make it bigger. As a computer monitor for my needs, nope. I don't use all of the horizontal space in my 1366 x 768 screen, and would prefer having the old 1280 x 1024 monitor, but that's just me.Reply

Even then most higher resolution 27" and 30" displays still include one for backup, just like they also include HDMI 1.3 ports that don't support resolutions beyond 1080p. The lack of it isn't a large negative to me, as that cuts down costs for something few people use now, but I'm sure some people would want to know.Reply

This LG display seems to be very narrowly targeted at just film buffs, hence its size and panel type. This really would only be nice for films that stay in the ultra-wide cinematic aspect ratio.

Elsewhere you've got TV shows that are full16:9, cheap direct-to-dvd/bluray releases that are 16:9 and films like the Dark Knight and Skyfall that have scenes in IMAX that will go 16:9. In all these cases you'll get vertical letter boxing. Just my own conclusion here, but horizontal letter boxing is less intrusive than black bars on the side.

I suppose there could be some productive benefits to this, view 3 pages side by side? Or producing network diagrams and other visuals like those.

Still seems a pretty niche target audience for this monitor. Wouldn't be a good trend to start with TVs either unless everyone dropped filming in 16:9.Reply

Cast you mind back to the old days, what aspect did people love for work, 4:3? 16:10, no, it was 5:4 aspect, like 1280x1024, this monitor as well as being great for movies lets you take advantage of the Windows 7/8 feature to dock two Windows on the screen side by side, and on this 2560x1080 screen that is a pair of 1280x1080 windows, 5:4 dual screen is back baby and you only need a single monitor to do it! :DReply

Why not use something close to Phi as the convention for aspect ratio? 16:10 (1.600) is fairly close to 1.618. 16:9 is 1.777 and is going the wrong direction with respect to what feel natural to watch and work with.Phi also works nicely as an aspect ratio if you flip a screen into portrait mode, since it maps well to A4 (1.414) with window scroll bars and utilities.Most web pages, like AnandTech, also only uses 600-1000 pixels in the width, so wider screens as at the relevant resolutions makes no sense for browsing the web. Again, protrait mode for 1080P and 1200P works well on the web, and also many other productivity tasks.Reply

The lack of 3D support seems like an obvious oversight, especially for a monitor that obviously targetted for movie and gaming use.I dont use 3D that much but I certainly wouldnt limit myself further by buying a monitor that couldnt support it at all.Reply

- Very few scalers actually work with a 3D picture. A Lumagen Radiance does, but that's $2000 to start with a basic model, and very few projectors with anamorphic mode support can do it to 3D. That would require a lot of extra power and push the price up. - If they went passive 3D (which LG usually does), that's introducing a texture onto the screen that many people, like myself, can not tolerate on non-3D content.

Given that adding 3D would push the costs up a good amount probably, I think it's a pretty easy thing to drop.Reply

I recently found myself in need of a new display for my computer. And I was very interested in this new model. But I was afraid that some games wouldn't be able to utilize it. And I also worried that the input lag might be intrusive. So I ended up settling on the Asus PB278Q. Which I'm happy to say is working out quite well.

I personally still wish I could get something like Vizio's Cinemawide TV for watching movies. But that will have to wait. However I commend LG for at least trying to fill this market niche. Its nice to see some companies that aren't afraid to take some risks.Reply

I agree with Chris that a 27" is a better choice, but as compared to a 1920x1080-monitor it makes a lot of sense. 1920 by itself is just silly to work with in most cases, 1920 divided by two is only 960, far from enough for two work areas side by side. A browser need at least 1024 pixels, but even 1200 pixels is often a bit lacking. 2560 divided by two is much more workable.Reply

Anandtech crowd is a lot smarter than the rest of internet. I read a lot about 16:9 vs 16:10 back then when it came and people made ridiculous arguments for 16:9 stating that it's good for movies etc (while no movie has ever been shot in 16:9).

If not for the loss of pixels I would vote for 16:9 but 1080 on these monitors is not much bigger than 1280x1024 what I had on my CRT 12 years ago. There is not really much more space on monitors, unless you get one of 1200 or 1440. I used to have the 27" iMac, it was nice, lots of space on the monitor.Reply